Hughes Thomas
Loyola and the Educational System of the Jesuits
Part II
ANALYSIS OF THE SYSTEM OF STUDIES
CHAPTER X
AQUAVIVA. THE RATIO STUDIORUM
So centralized an Order as the Society of Jesus, which formed its Professors for every country, and sent them from one place to another, undertook, in doing so, to exhibit a definite system of education, of courses, of method. Besides such a unity of method, it professed also a consistent uniformity of doctrine.
Before its time there was no one method which could be considered universal; because there was no teaching body itself universal. The Order, as it branched out into the world, found a variety of systems in vogue; and the Jesuit Professors conformed, as best they could, to the local traditions of populations very diverse, in universities which were distinct and mutually independent. But, while they endeavored to better such systems, in accordance with the plan of their own Constitution, it was clear that they fell short of realizing the idea of their founder. Hence variations and dispensations were part of the usual order of the day.
Yet there is a best way of doing everything; and, not least, in education. In such a best way, some elements are essential at all times, while others are accidental, and vary with time, place, and circumstance. The ideal system will preserve in its integrity all that is essential, and then will adapt the general principles with the closest adjustment to the particular environment.
Besides the unity of method desired, which I may define to be the best way best adjusted to circumstance, there was need, as I have just said, of a consistent uniformity of doctrine; lest, in the same chair of philosophy, of divinity, or of science, or in chairs placed side by side, one Professor should say Yea to a question, and another Nay to the same question, with no more material a reason evident for the difference, save that one taught here and the other there, one spoke yesterday, the other speaks to-day. The educational effects, however, are far from being immaterial; for, contradictory statements eliding one another, it is quite possible that the students understand less the next day than the day before. And, as to the Professors themselves, nothing can imperil more the harmony and efficiency of an educational organization, than disagreement of opinion in the function and act of teaching. In philosophy, the occasions for dispute spring off at every turn. Theology, as every one knows, is made to bristle with them. And, among men who are themselves educated to the highest degree of mental culture, interests and questions like these are far more absorbing than money, place, or power elsewhere. If anywhere ideas rule, it is among men of profound thought; as the intense intellectuality of the mediæval universities had shown, with all the consequences of unlimited vagaries in an unbridled scholasticism; or, again, as the whole history of the intellectual Greek world had evidenced, whether in the early ages of the Christian Church, or in the heathen generations before.
Whatever, then, a man may think privately, and be free to think, in matters of mere opinion, the genius of education imposes limits on the manner and matter of his actual teaching; and the speculations of a thinker, a writer, or an investigator, are not to be confounded with the best results of an educator, who, doing his work in the best way, is to effect a definite and immediate object. That object is nothing less than the equipping of fresh young spirits with principles of thought and habits of life, to enter fully appointed on their respective paths of duty. In this view, therefore, definiteness of matter, no less than unity of method, were required from the first for an effective system of education.
During forty years, the individual enterprise of experienced and responsible men had been interpreting the values and measuring the results of existing methods. The Society itself had mounted into such a position, as practically to command the whole field of secular education. Its own system must have been excellent already. Nor could that system have been uniformly excellent, but for some uniformity which characterized it. Still the unity was defective. The Provinces were petitioning for an improvement. Evils obstructed the way to something better. For these reasons, the matter was taken in hand by one General after another. And the final outcome of their work was a "Form," or "Method of Studies," Formula, or Ratio Studiorum.
On the nineteenth day of February, 1581, Father Claudius Aquaviva was elected fifth General Superior of the Society. Taking up this educational project where his predecessors had left it, and, like them, availing himself of his almost boundless resources for obtaining information, he began by putting the work through every possible stage of consultation, to which the traditions of his office, and his own executive ability prompted him; and, when all prudent means had been exhausted in deliberating, he then used the executive power which was vested in him; and he required that what had been so laboriously designed, by the united efforts of many, should henceforth be reduced to practice, with the good will of all.
It will be interesting to review briefly the process of elaboration. In the general assembly which elected Aquaviva, a committee of twelve Fathers from different countries was appointed to draw up a method of studies. How far their work proceeded does not appear. Three years later, in 1584, the General named a Commission of six, John Azor from Spain, Gaspar Gonzalez from Portugal, Peter Buys from Austria, Anthony Guisani from Upper Germany, Stephen Tucci of Rome, and James Tyre to represent France. This last-named Jesuit, a Scotchman, was not unknown in the lists of controversy to his countryman, John Knox. They were all experienced in the administration of colleges, and versed in the subjects of all the faculties. Entering on their labors, they worked during six winter months in the Pœnitentiaria of St. Peter's in Rome; and, during the next three summer months, they resided in the Quirinal. The eyes of the chief authorities in the Catholic world were turned in expectancy towards them. Indeed, some of the chief interests of Catholic Christendom seemed to depend upon them.
They spent three hours a day in consultation. The rest of their time they devoted to consulting authors and conning over methods, in the three fields of letters, philosophy, and divinity. The documents which they studied are enumerated by themselves as being the minutes of previous deliberations held at Rome, or in the more prominent colleges of the Order; the letters, consultations and laws of the universities, and other such documents, sent at different times up to that date from Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Poland; the fourth part of the Constitution, as the standard of guidance; the canons of the general assemblies; the rules and statutes of the schools; moreover, the customs and regulations of the Roman College.144
After nine months of consecutive labor, they presented the results to the General, in August, 1585. Father Aquaviva submitted the document for examination to the Professors of the Roman College. Then he took the whole matter under his own personal consideration, with his four General Assistants, who represented each a certain number of Provinces. At this stage, the report was printed, not as a rule determined on, but as the preliminary outline of a rule. The copies struck off were few, just enough for the use of the Provinces. The General's letter, which accompanied the report, defined the precise stage at which the process was now understood to be.145
He says that, in a matter of such grave and universal consequence, it was not his intention to prescribe anything, without first learning the opinions of the chief Doctors of the Society. Accordingly, he had been content with reading the results of the Commission's labors, decreeing nothing, changing nothing, except so far as was necessary to put it in shape for distribution. He now required the Provincial Superiors, immediately upon receipt of the present letter, to select at least five men, who were the best qualified in point of learning and judgment, along with other members, who were eminent in literature, and whom the Provincial might think fit to convoke. To these the report was to be submitted, for each to examine privately, and with great care. On certain days, several times in the week, they were to meet and hold consultations; to put their conclusions in writing, as well with regard to the practical method of studies, as with regard to the speculative opinions which they favored; they were to note whatever they thought should be added, or be made clearer, or otherwise regulated, for the greater perfection of the work. If any of the Fathers, designated for this Provincial committee, could not possibly attend the meetings, still they were to send their opinions in writing to the Fathers actually in session; so that full account might be taken of the public opinion in that Province. The criterion they were to follow, in making up their minds, was not so much their own private sentiment or their own leaning this way or that, as the general good of the whole Society, the practice of the universities and schools, and, in fine, the judgment of Doctors most approved for their authority and solidity of doctrine.
Aquaviva refers to the idea and intention of Ignatius with respect to the present undertaking; and he adds: "I would have all steadfastly keep this object in view, that they endeavor to find out reasons, not how a final decree may be prevented, as if the enterprise were hard, and could not possibly be carried out (for we have made up our mind to carry it out, since it is necessary, and is recommended by the Constitution); but how the difficulties, if any such there be, may disappear, and the whole Order may combine in one and the same arrangement; for otherwise the final result would only be the greater detriment of the Society."
He calls their attention to an important point, in what is now styled Pedagogics, or the Science of Education. It is, that, in the form now sent out, the Fathers had taken pains to explain their reasons for arriving at conclusions. That would not be done in the System to be drawn up later, which would contain only the statement of directions for all to follow. In these words, we have a most important distinction laid down between the science which underlies the system of education, and the practical method itself which rests upon the science. The Ratio Studiorum, as subsequently promulgated, is a practical method. The science is sketched, as need arises, in the preliminary Ratio of 1586.
At the same time, Father Aquaviva despatched another letter, about which he says, in a postscript to the foregoing, that the six points provisionally laid down in it are to be subjected to the same examination as the preliminary Ratio itself.
In this supplementary epistle, he premises that it will require much time and consideration to issue the final code of rules; and therefore, as a direction for the time being, he issues the following: —
First, Professors shall adhere to St. Thomas Aquinas as their standard in theology.
Secondly, they shall take care, in their manner of teaching, always to consolidate faith and piety.
Thirdly, he lays down a principle of still wider application, and one which seems vital in the whole theory and practice of teaching: "Let no one defend any opinion which is judged by the generality of learned men to go against the received tenets of philosophers and theologians, or the common consent of theological schools." This touches a vital element in education. If we suppose that the teacher's art lies, not in giving forth the lucubrations of his own private thoughts and theories, but in imparting solid results, approved and ascertained, to those who come for such results, and wish to receive them in the most approved way, then the Professor in his chair ought not to mistake himself for the author in his study, nor should he practise on living men, whose life is all before them, what he might, with more propriety, first practise on the leisured world, and test elsewhere, either in the printed page, or in conference with his equals. The Professor, as such, is not the original investigator. In mathematics, he is notoriously not so. In that branch, the best teacher is the man who walks along a definite line, turns neither to the right nor left, and finishes in a definite time; or else his scholars will never finish. To a certain degree, the same holds in all courses. If a man is theorizing, when he ought to be instructing, he goes off the line of perfect system, however much pains he takes with his matter; just as much as if, taking no pains whatever, he neglected his matter altogether, went behind it, or around it, gave histories of his branch, methods of teaching it, and descanted on pedagogics, to young people who were never sent to him for that purpose. They are sent to learn definite matter, and to be formed therein on a good plan, by the man who understands it. Then, as Loyola said in another connection, "when they have experienced in themselves the effects thereof," they will be qualified for all the rest, for understanding the plan itself on which they have been formed, and enjoying all the practical results of it; and, if their line of life invites, for understanding other plans too. This is practical wisdom in education; neither dilettantism nor speculation.
Fourthly, Aquaviva lays down a principle regarding the public advocacy of opinions. He is not referring to authorities denouncing, or Professors repudiating, them; but merely to certain conditions for putting them forward: "If opinions, no matter whose they be, are found in a certain province or city to give offence to many Catholics, whether members of the Society or not, that is, persons not unqualified to judge, let no one teach them or defend them there, albeit the same doctrines may be taught elsewhere without offence." The word "defence," in a context like this, means publishing and sustaining theses against all comers in public disputations; wherein the Professor represents the school, and the school is put to the account of the Order. The principle seems discreet. If a corporate body does not want to be compromised, it is not for the member to compromise it. If he wants to use the perfect freedom of his opinions, and deliver himself of his own pronouncements, he ought first to assure himself that his circumstances are such as to set him free from representing others. This is an elementary principle of social and urbane existence.
The fifth point concerns the march of improvement in the advancement of opinions. It describes the method of discreet development: "In questions which have already been treated by others, let no one follow new opinions, or, in matters which in any way pertain to religion, or are of some consequence, let no one introduce new questions, without consulting the Prefect of Studies, or the Superior. If, then, it still remains dubious, whether the new opinion, or the new question, is permissible, it will be proper for the said authority, in order that things may proceed more smoothly, to learn the judgment of others in the Society upon the subject; and then he will determine what appears best for the greater glory of God." In the sixth and last point, Aquaviva calls attention to a former decree, upon the manner of treating the Aristotelian philosophy.146
So much for this letter of Aquaviva. On the sense and purport thereof he invited the communication of views from the Order at large, as well as on the document which he encloses, the preliminary Ratio Studiorum. To this we may now turn our attention.
The six Fathers, who drew it up, state, in their introduction, that there are two mainstays and supports of the Society of Jesus, "an ardent pursuit of piety and an eminent degree of learning," ardens pietatis studium et præstans rerum scientia. If piety is not illumined with the light of learning, it can be, no doubt, of great use to the person who possesses it, but of scarcely any use in the service of the Church and of one's neighbor, in the administration of the Word and of the Sacraments, in the education of youth, in controversies with those who are hostile to the faith, in giving counsel, answering doubts, and in all other offices and functions, which are proper to men of the Order. All these call for an endowment of learning not common, but excelling in its degree.
To acquire such learning, it is of supreme consequence that we set before ourselves what path we enter on, what arts we employ, and what means we use; because, unless a ready and tried method be adopted, ratio facilis ac solers, much labor is spent in gathering but little fruit; whereas, if the labor of studies be guided by some sage rule, great results are compendiously obtained, at the cost of little research.
Then the Commission goes on to say: "We have undertaken to teach, not only members of the Order, but youth from the world outside. The number of this latter class is vast; it includes brilliant talent, and represents the nobility. We cannot imagine that we do justice to our functions, or come up to the expectations formed of us, if we do not feed this multitude of youths, in the same way as nurses do, with food dressed in the best way, for fear they grow up in our schools, without growing much in learning. An additional spur is felt in the circumstance, that whatever concerns us is public and, day after day, is before the eyes of all, even of those who are not well disposed towards us." The Fathers consider it unnecessary to enlarge upon that harmony of views, so much commended in the Constitution, as to matters of public policy or teaching; they say, "sufficient regard could not, up to this, be paid to such harmony; for, when no common order or form was as yet prescribed, every one thought that he could hold what sentiments he liked, and teach them to others in the manner he himself preferred; so that sometimes the members of the Order disagreed as much among themselves, as with others outside."147
After describing, in vivid terms, the manner in which they had conducted their deliberations, and arrived at conclusions, and how, when any keen dispute had arisen among them,148 they had divided and distinguished the disputed matter, and had examined it during two and even three days, till they came to settle at last on what all of them accepted, the critics come to the Practice and Order of Studies;149 and upon this they enlarge, in successive chapters, under the following heads: —
The Sacred Scriptures. The Length of the Course in Divinity. The Means of finishing that Course in Four Years. The Method of Lecturing. The Questions which are either not to be treated by the Theological Professors, or are to be treated only at a Certain Part of the Course. Repetitions. Disputations. The Choice, Censorship, and Correcting of Opinions. The Private Studies of Students. Vacations. The Degrees of Bachelor, Master, Doctor. Controversial Theology. Moral Theology. Hebrew. The Study of Philosophy, which includes Physics. Mathematics. Literature, that is, Grammar, History, Poetry, Rhetoric. Seminaries for Literature and the Higher Faculties. The Professors of Literature. The Grammar to be used. Greek. Different Exercises in the Classics. Incitements to Study. The Method of Promotion. Books. Vacations in the Lower Classes. Order and Piety. The Respective Objects and Exercises of the Classes of Grammar and Humanity. The Class of Humanity. The Class of Rhetoric. General Distribution of Time during the Year.
These are the matters handled in the publication of 1586. In the course of treatment, this document contains, by way of a running commentary, the complete theory of Education, or Science of Pedagogics, as understood by these critics. It will not be possible, within the brief limits of this work, to give more than a bare sketch of the pedagogical elements contained in the one hundred and fifty pages of the Monumenta Germaniæ Pædagogica.150
A second, partial edition of this preliminary Ratio was sent out by Father Aquaviva, in 1591, to which an entertaining bibliographical history is attached.151 In 1593, the fifth general assembly of the Order met, Claudius Aquaviva presiding. By this time, during the interval of seven years which had elapsed since the first edition, the book had been subjected to examination in all the Provinces; observations and criticisms had been returned; it had been re-committed to the Fathers at Rome, and revised by the General with his Assistants; and had again been sent out for trial. The Provincials and Deputies, meeting in 1593, brought with them the reports of how the system worked. Its slightest defects were noted.152 Most asked for an abridged form.
Amid the very grave questions then pending, the assembly took some action on the Ratio. It was re-committed once more to the competent authorities for revision. And it assumed its last and definite form, in what was probably its ninth edition. This last issue, in the year 1599, after fifteen years spent on the elaboration of it, is the RATIO STUDIORUM.
One hundred and twenty-seven years later, the great old University of Paris seems to have become a disciple of its educational rival, the Society of Jesus. Querard observes that the Rector, Rollin, "without saying anything about it, translated the Ratio for his Traité des Études."153 Indeed, as M. Bréal, historian of that University, observes, referring to the suppression of the Order: "Once delivered from the Jesuits, the University installed itself in their houses, and continued their manner of teaching."154
In all general works on education, there is question of this System. Its form is that of a practical method, without reasons being assigned, or arguments urged. It is a legislative document, which superseded all previous forms. The General's letter, which accompanied it, ordered the suppression of them all, promulgating this one to the exclusion of the rest.
The sentiment, to which the last words of this letter gives expression as a fond hope, was fully responded to by the course of events, in the one hundred and seventy-four years which were to elapse before the general suppression of the Order: "It is believed," he said, "that it will bring forth abundant fruit, for the benefit of our scholars," Quae nostris auditoribus uberes fructus allatura creditur. Aquaviva's letter is dated the eighth day of January, 1599.155
